In early 2026, a post on the r/Liberal Gun Owners subreddit recounted a disturbing incident that occurred at home. A New York Times columnist, however, chose to leave out significant parts of the story, seemingly to push an anti-gun agenda.
In a Reddit post shared on March 2nd, a user detailed how their partner had bought a Glock pistol “for self-defense because the federal government is doing fascist things in our community.” Further updates in the thread showed that the Reddit user, unfamiliar with pistols despite having experience with rifles and shotguns, was still taken aback by a subsequent event. The partner was practicing loading the weapon and racking the slide when they felt an overwhelming urge to pull the trigger, leading to an accidental shot that left a hole in the wall of their home, which they shared with their cat.
Fortunately, no one in the house, including the cat, was injured in the incident. Following the gunfire, the Reddit user emphasized that their partner would no longer load the firearm with live rounds inside the house and decided to keep it stored away.
In an update, the user shared that their partner had begun PTSD treatment, completed a long-desired firearms training course, and had visited the shooting range multiple times since then. This should have occurred before the unfortunate “accidental shooting.” The incident highlights the importance of responsible gun ownership, particularly in relation to Second Amendment rights.
However, New York Times ethicist Kwame Anthony Appiah, a philosophy professor at NYU, had a differing perspective. In a column, he used a condensed version of the Reddit post that excluded critical details about the partner’s firearms training and visits to the range. He posed questions that seemed to reflect a predictable stance against gun ownership.
Appiah remarked, “In addition to your partner’s alarming compulsive behavior, there also appears to be a complex belief system. How can she think that owning a handgun will help fend off government action?” He further elaborated that the pursuit of safety through firearm ownership might counterintuitively lead to increased danger.
This perspective invites scrutiny. Historical context suggests that many have reason to view state violence differently. Scholars like Stephen Halbrook have pointed out how British troops historically seized firearms, leading to significant uprisings.
Continuing his critique, Appiah labeled the partner of the gun owner as the antagonist, suggesting that the issue of gun ownership at home should be mutually agreed upon rather than unilaterally decided. He questioned why the partner’s sense of security should take precedence over the anxiety it caused.
It’s true that the Reddit user and their partner made several poor choices throughout their gun ownership journey that could have led to a much worse outcome. They were fortunate that only the wall was damaged and not any living beings.
At the very least, it’s understood that proper firearm safety includes not practicing with live ammunition indoors, regardless of prior experience with guns. Open communication about such matters is vital, especially when one party is a novice.
While it’s reasonable for them to receive a briefing about firearm safety, the criticism from Appiah may have been unwarranted. It remains unclear if he had access to the full Reddit thread or if his article was based on a summary that lacked additional context. We reached out to him for clarification and will update accordingly if we hear back.
